What's a good harddrive to get?

>>57669209
Falafel.

>>57669209
>Tell me why I'm wrong /g/
>SSHD hard drives

>>57669695
Can you go into anymore detail then that?

>>57669740

Hybrid is kinda meh. Just scrape up the money and RAID 0 a pair of good SSD's.

>>57669637
>Falafel
Can you explain what this is supposed to mean? Unless you want me to go eat some deep-fried balls I really don't understand how your contribution is relevant.

>>57669759
Ordinarily I would, but the FireCuda's are going for $136 Canadian while the WD Blacks are going for around $160. Is there that much of a difference between the two?

>>57669209
>I'm currently looking at buying two 2TB FireCuda SSHD hard drives to put into a raid
kek
For the price you're spending on those two, you could have RAIDed two faster hard drives and use a 128GB SSD as a cache/OS boot drive

>>57670507
For a Canadian at 7200 RPM? Which ones?

>>57669779
>Is there that much of a difference between the two?
The only thing that the Firecuda and other SSHDs do better at is random 4k read and writes, but that's a moot point when you consider that the SSD portion of the drive (it's just a shitty 8GB flash you can find on cheap USBs) dies fairly quickly and you lose everything on the drive when that happens.
>>57670526
2TB Toshiba P300s and Hitachi Deskstar 5K2000 or whatever that 2TB version is called. Pair that with a 120GB A-Data SP550, partition the drive and save at least 60GB for OS installation and no less than 32GB for caching.

>>57670547
I was actually considering the p300 but I haven't seen a lot of reviews for them. Are they good for gaming and regular usage?

>>57670609
They're better than the older Toshiba 2-3TB drives that had head crash issues. The P300 is pretty fast for what you get, it's faster than the Seagate Barracuda and WD Blue 2TBs. The latest WD Black 2TB is barely faster, but it's consistently faster at consecutive reads and writes. The Hitachi Deskstar is the slowest of the bunch, but not by much. We're talking about margins of ~10MB/s, though.
If you want a solid performing single drive, the you can buy a X300 4TB for less than the price of two Firecudas or a single WD Black 4TB (the newer ones, see the serial number on WD's site) and not have to worry about RAID0 failures.

>>57670664
So would the X300 4TB be worth it over a P300 3T raid? I know its cheaper but I would also be losing 2TB for only $20.

>>57671310
That depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for outright speed with capacity, you could go striping two P300s or Deskstars. If you feel like playing it a little safer, go with the X300/WD Black.

I just bought 2TB WD Blue 5200rpm

always had bad luck with 7200rpm models

>>57671474
Alright, I think I know what I'm going to do now. Thanks for the help.

>>57671516
inb4 the 5400 one also fails and anon realizes he has bad luck with hdd in general

>>57669209
ZFS NAS w/ SSD cache and slog

>>57669765
>meet aggression with aggression, shitposting with shitposting

>>57669740
>SSHD
>Faults of SSD
>Faults of HDD
Enjoy the disaster

File: toshiba_hdwe140xzsta_x300_4tb_3_5_desktop_1182859.jpg (196KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 2000x2000px

>>57669209

was the general consensus on HDD brands?

HGST > Toshiba > WD > Seagate

>>57669209
>RAID
>SSHD

Are you retarded?

>>57674132
HGST>Seagate>WD>Toshiba

Not all of us make our comparisons purely on Desktop-class drives. Though if you look at Backblaze Seagate seems to have completely reversed from where they were.

>>57671516
All HDDs die eventually. That's why you have backups. RAID is not a backup. Anyways if that's just for your media and not your games/OS then that's fine. Though I would have gone NAS class for the better warranty.

Newer Seagates models

Don't go above 3tb

>SSHD
>SSHD in RAID

Niggah you're double retarded